[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: modules, PLIST and PFRAG.shared

On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 12:09:48AM +0000, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Jolan Luff <jolan_(_at_)_protection_(_dot_)_cx> wrote:
> > > So for ports that set NOT_FOR_ARCHS=NO_SHARED_ARCHS, should .so
> > > files be put into PFRAG.shared, or should update-plist be patched
> > > to not move .so files to PFRAG.shared?
> > 
> > Put them in PFRAG.shared regardless of NOT_FOR_ARCHS=NO_SHARED_ARCHS.
> Assuming there *is* a PFRAG.shared.  If a port is only for shared
> archs, there is no point in having PFRAG.shared in the first place.
> Actual handling of this in the ports tree is inconsistent; I don't
> think it's a terribly important detail.

Maybe, but it does affect some ports I working on, it will probably
make things a little difficult for, say www/php4/extensions.  It
wouldn't be a big deal, to do this once, but, and I may be doing
this wrong, but I'm following the example of xmms to make a
port that has .so files in the subpackages, and update-plist seems to
pull all the .so files out of the multiple PFRAG.shared-foo files and
put them into PFRAG.shared.

$ grep -r SED_PLIST *
$ cat pkg/PIST-foo
@comment $OpenBSD$
$ cat pkg/PFRAG.shared-foo
@comment $OpenBSD$

Is there a better way?